Re: Why are the sites in North and South America with claims for great age all on the East side?

On May 19, 3:40 pm, Matt Giwer <jul...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Jack Linthicum wrote:
On May 19, 3:13 pm, Hayabusa <peregr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sat, 17 May 2008 10:29:27 -0700 (PDT), Jack Linthicum
<jacklinthi...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Taking Meadowcroft, Topper, Pedra Furada, the Clovis sites in the
Chesapeake area as being evidence, why are there no comparable sites
on the West Coast and the Great Plains? The first three claim age
beyond that claimed for the paleo-Indian migration, the Clovis sites
are on the "wrong" side of the continent, engendering theories of
cross-Atlantic migration.
Is there any logical explanation for this or is it just chance that
the migrants traveled until they ran out of room?
Why are the great majority of the prehistoric sites in Europe in the
Med and SW-France? Because the climate was more hospitable.
I have little knowledge of the climate in the US during the ice age, I
just know that the Death Valley was a shallow lake from 60kbp to
35kbp, and a deep lake until 10kbp whence it fell dry; and today's
Salt Lake is the sorry leftover of the once-giant Lake Bonneville. So
there was more water in the West than there is today. Still, the SE
must have been the most hospitable region then.
Would you walk 2000 miles to find a better cave?

        How far would you follow game migrations to eat? Human populations grow to
match the carrying capacity of the land for a particular level of technology.
If the 17,000 years ago spread to the east then certainly 50,000 years ago
people would spread to the west.

Yep, there was a paper on that very point.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/322546
J. M. Adams, G. R. Foote, and M. Otte
Could Pre-Last Glacial Maximum Humans Have Existed in North America
Undetected? An Interregional Approach to the Question
Current Anthropology Volume 42, Number 4, August/October 2001

"If one assumes a colonization of the Americas somewhere between
40,000 and 25,000 radiocarbon years ago, it is necessary to explain
why far fewer generally accepted sites have been found there than in
Australia or Europe during that time interval (fig.1 The Australian
continent has a smaller land area than the U.S.A., is less densely
populated (with the result that there is less chance of discovering
sites), and with its greater aridity would have presented conditions
less favourable for hunter-gatherer occupation (and site
preservation?). Relatively speaking, at least as much land area has
been lost from the coastal regions of Australia because of postglacial
sea-level rise as in the U.S.A., so any coastal archaeological record
in Australia should have been depleted about as much as a coastal
record in the U.S.A.

Given that there are so many resource-rich rivers leading inland from
the U.S. coastline, it seems implausible that a growing population of
humans would have confined itself to coasts for many thousands of
years. Considering all of this, the absence of sites generally
accepted as predating the Last Glacial Maximum in the U.S.A. is
surprising. If hunter-gatherers were present in the U.S.A. at any
given time, the chances of their showing up in the archaeological
record are surely greater than for Australia."





--
Government sponsored terrorism, ex. Bush
paying for bomb attacks in Iran.
        -- The Iron Webmaster, 4011
 http://www.haaretz.comWhat is Israel really like?http://www.jpost.coma7- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

.

Relevant Pages
Loading